A High Court ruling has found that a compulsory purchase order (CPO) can go ahead on a planned section of Connemara greenway, despite objections from a landowner.

Galway County Council made a CPO in respect of a 6.75km strip of land, which is required for the Connemara Greenway Project.

The greenway would connect Oughterard with Clifden, both in Co. Galway.

The route includes a strip which runs through lands owned by Oliver Joyce, a farmer.

The lands have been in Joyce's family’s ownership since the 1940s, and are part of the old railway bed of the Galway to Clifden rail line.

Joyce contended that the scheme that was the subject of the CPO is not the same as the scheme for which planning consent was granted back in 2013.

He submitted to court that severance of the lands was not proposed, and as a result, the environmental impacts of the scheme will be “fundamentally different” from what was originally agreed upon.

His submission also said that "the issue of compulsory acquisition was not addressed in the EIAR [Environmental Impact Assessment Report] and NIS [Natura Impact Statement]”, and that both were based on “permissive access”.

Permissive access in Ireland refers to a voluntary arrangement where a landowner allows the public to use their land for recreation.  

Joyce’s submission also stated that the type of fencing envisaged is “different to that which was authorised” by the order made in 2013, meaning that “a new EIAR and NIS are required”.

Rejected

Judge Emily Farrell rejected this opposition, meaning that the CPO can go ahead.

In her judgment, she stated: "I am satisfied that the scheme as authorised in 2013 contemplated compulsory purchase if the landowners did not consent to the works."

The court found that that “the possibility of the erection of fencing along the entire route, was considered in the process which led to the 2013 authorisation”.

The court also found that it is “clear that there was flexibility as to the type of the fencing which would be erected”.

Judge Farrell also ruled that the applicant was not entitled to costs protection in respect of proceedings, and made no order for the costs of the application.